In the first half of last year we conducted a poll of perfect voters ahead of the election in the fall. We wanted to get a sense of what voters were thinking about population growth and the change and new housing associated with more people coming to Seattle for jobs and to start new businesses. We found voters mostly stuck in the worrisome narrative we’d guessed: growth is good but it’s happening too fast and should be slowed down with fees. Highlights were that voters believe short supply drives up prices which is true, and a lowlight was their belief that builders are large, outside corporations which is not. I paid the poll results a visit to consider what they mean for the upzones associated with the Grand Bargain.

There are two key points we landed on with the poll results. First, most voters get that growth is good, and are for increasing growth. About 68 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “Seattle’s growth is a positive thing, it is making Seattle more diverse and vibrant.”

And a “majority of voters (57 percent) are in the ‘pro growth” category.” However, about half of those voters (27 percent) “are generally against new housing and growth in single-family neighborhoods.” Over all, “46 percent are generally against more growth and more new housing.”

On its face, the alloyed nature of support for growth and and the need for housing it creates, doesn’t bode well for lots of big upzones in the neighborhoods. This is especially true for efforts to add any density to single-family neighborhoods; significant majorities oppose any changes there.

This is why the Mayor so rapidly changed course on suggestions made by his Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Committee to add more housing choices and types to single-family neighborhoods. Looking at the numbers from last year makes the politics drop dead obvious: leave single-family neighborhoods alone.

But where, according to voters, would growth be best suited?

Interestingly, even the anti-growth segment is against more growth, to the extent it happens, they want it downtown. So those most skeptical of growth and those who favor it outside single-family want it Downtown and in South Lake Union.

Another interesting element of things that make voters more supportive of growth is building more affordable housing.

So one way to look at all this is something like the following:

Voters throughout the city generally support growth, but would rather see more of it in places like Downtown and South Lake Union rather than in their neighborhoods and in single-family zones. One thing that would make that growth more acceptable is the development of affordable housing.

What should worry the Mayor, if he’s considering reelection, is proposing major upzones in neighborhoods while not building any affordable housing Downtown and South Lake Union. That’s this one place EVERYONE agrees growth should happen; yet the Grand Bargain does exactly the opposite, proposing upzones Downtown and South Lake Union with no affordability requirement. Because the Bargain keeps fees low in those neighborhoods, builders will pay in lieu fees, not build.

The upzones for Downtown and South Lake Union will be a done deal by 2017, the Mayor will be offering just the upzones with affordability everywhere else to voters who are generally skeptical of growth and housing in the neighborhoods. It’s true there are ways to persuade, but it’s going to take quite a bit of effort to persuade neighborhoods that growth should happen in their back yard when they’ve been pretty clear they want it downtown.

Remember, also, that the City Council’s district structure means angry neighbors are also angry constituents, and the temptation to run against the “Mayor’s Bargain” or the “Mayor’s Upzones” will be irresistible for Councilmembers running for reelection — and, maybe, for someone who might challenge him directly. The campaign could be all about who listens to your concerns? Certainly not the Mayor, right? He made a deal with big downtown developers and now you’re having to take growth and housing  you’d rather have go somewhere else.

Our position is clear: build more housing, of all types, in all areas of the city (Including single-family areas), for all levels of income and without infeasible and illegal mandates. More housing is the answer and that does mean adding more capacity–including upzones. That isn’t a politically popular idea however. But we’re not running for reelection in 2017.

Methodology

-Telephone survey of likely November 2015 voters in City of Seattle
-Conducted April 6 – 9, 2015
-475 total interviews citywide; ±4.4 percentage points
-Weighted to reflect City of Seattle likely November 2015 voter population using key demographics
-Interviewing conducted by trained, professional interviewers